i did a writeup about it awhile back:

https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/astrology-science-or-psuedoscience

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969288)

I will say that this sentence is extremely credited: "Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying Whig history is wrong, our ancestors were smarter than we acknowledge through our modern prism, and that part of the job of reorienting the public away from globohomo’s toxic vision of humanity, life, and history is to re-engage with a better respect for why people did things historically."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969488)

What convinced me over time, although I am by no means an expert or even intermediate-level astrologer, was I spent a stupid amount of time looking at natal charts of specific individuals, both historical and personal, using the full chart on Astrotheme (https://www.astrotheme.com/birth-chart-sign-ascendant.php ): planets, houses, aspects, and degrees (especially degrees). I found that the descriptions lined up much better than chance. I also found an astrologer I like who does natal and progressed readings (Indian, woman, she does it as a hobby, not a career); without knowing me, and with only my birth data, her readings were surprisingly accurate.

Epistemically, what separates it is specificity and falsifiability. A tabloid horoscope says "you will have a challenging week" which is vague and un-falsifiable. A detailed reading says something like "you have a Saturn-Pluto square in the 7th house, which suggests a particular kind of relational tension that will manifest in a specific way." Again, this isn't proof, but it is evidence of a sort, and I would also point you to this:

"“In 1951 Jung’s synchronistic theory of astrology began to waver. That year Max Knoll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Knoll) delivered a lecture at the Eranos meeting in Ascona, Switzerland, on “the Transformations of Science in Our Age.” He pointed out that the proton radiation from the sun is influenced to such a degree by the conjunctions, oppositions, and quartile aspects of the planets that the occurrence of electromagnetic storms (sunspot periods) can be predicted with a fair amount of probability. And since correspondences have been established between sunspot periods and the mortality rate, as well as disturbances of “radio weather” during those periods, there is a real possibility of causal connections and direct influences. These astronomical observations have confirmed the unfavorable influence of planetary conjunctions, oppositions, and quartile aspects, as always assumed by astrology, and the positive influence of the astrologically favorable trine and sextile aspects.

The scientific discovery of these causal relationships gave Jung an unexpected glimpse into the theoretical foundations of astrology. At first he was inclined to repudiate its inclusion among the mantic methods based on synchronicity, for, according to the new findings, the possibility of a causal connection between the planetary aspects and man’s psychophysiological disposition would have to be taken seriously into account. “Astrology,” he said, “is in the process of becoming a science.”

Later Jung revised this somewhat too drastic or one-sided statement and opined that synchronistic as well as causal connections would have to be adduced in explaining astrology. In April 1958 he wrote in a letter: “Astrology seems to require differing hypotheses, and I am unable to opt for an either-or. We shall probably have to resort to a mixed explanation, for nature does not give a fig for the sanitary neatness of our intellectual categories of thought.”…After the death of Jung, science made no further endeavors to solve the problem.”

- “From the Life and Work of C.G. Jung” by Aniela Jaffe, p. 32-33.

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5876411&mc=6&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969517)

https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5724788&mc=22&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969549)

what "value" have *you* produced to anyone, other than being a laughingstock over your gross and desperate box obsession?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969634)

I assumed you meant to differentiate your view from the modern astrology that half of the women and gay guys I meet believe in. They all know their whole charts with the houses and degrees and all that. And they all believe, with different levels of depth to their theories of the exact mechanisms, that the cosmic conditions at the moment of your birth determine who you become and the movement of the planets affects how your life unfolds in a predictable way.

If you had just replied "yes I believe in the same thing all the witchy girls believe, here's an article about it" then I wouldn't have asked for clarification.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969683)

When I was in LA I met a dude from San Francisco and he always used to say that the biggest difference between LA and SF was how often people talk about astrology (way more in Lalaland). He was like I came down here and people are so dumb I want to move back lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969736)

There are other issues too, for instance with the Gauquelin section, which is worse than just "validity remains up for debate," and the degree astrology section, which is basically just post-hoc Forer/Barnum-style symbolic overfitting (the celebrity examples are just retrospective pattern matching), but I don't feel like turning this into a redditor-style debunking poast and noone is going to read all that anyway.

The part I agree with is that ancient people were not idiots, cultural practices can preserve useful knowledge, and modernity can be arrogant toward premodern systems. Astrology has historical and symbolic richness. But that doesn't mean astrology has predictive validity. I think the stronger version of the argument wouldn't need Gauquelin at all, you should just make the case that symbolic frameworks and causal explanation address different orders of reality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969552)

Absolutely based I guess

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969556)

Yeah he edits them too and adds some of his own thoughts but you kinda have to or else the shtick is lame

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969703)

You'll just chalk stuff like this up to "well of course *SOME* of it was edited personally" so you can handwave away any pushback, but this phrase, which occurred in the middle of his poast, could not have been generated by AI unless he's been training some chatbot specifically for xo, and even then it would have capitalized Redditor.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969744)

It's just shtick like any other shtick. He's always been one of the smartest poasters here. You'd have to be very smart to do his shtick, because you have to be smart enough to understand every topic and actually understand the LLM output on every topic and edit it accordingly if necessary

Consuela is what it looks like when someone who isn't smart tries to do that shtick. Copy pasting of completely incoherent LLM babble or non responsive LLM output because he didn't understand the topic well enough to prompt it correctly

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969756)

"I disagree."

"Trust me I know these things."

"[Evidence]"

"Why do you even care so much."

***

I'd like to believe being a stubborn retard is your "shtick" but it's genuinely who you are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969769)

To wit: do you believe the second part that you agreed with describes you fairly as well?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969868)

He's having fun with it like anyone else doing shtick. I enjoy the shtick, I'm not badmouthing it in any way. Although sometimes I want his sincere opinion on something and it's a little annoying that I can never tell if it's him responding or not

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969843)

The older I get, the more certain I become that the issue is that society has a hard time with nuance. The shift from religion/spiritualism to rationalism was very turbulent, and because rationality won people quickly became dismissive of everything else.

Now, with rationality* shown to often be flawed, we're seeing people reject it completely, and now there's people that believe every malady can be cured with fasting and a paleo diet, and all modern medicine is a lie.

*Not the system of rationality itself, but how things promulgated as indisputable "trust the experts" have been shielded from any criticism or nuance with "it's science!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969565)

They're not always the best tool for the job

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969584)

Mazal tov literally means may you have good constellations (mazallot)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878327&forum_id=2,#49969802)